• iterable@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I don’t know natural disasters and war causing it to screw up also tends to worry people. Last time I checked wind and solar don’t create massive damage to the environment when destroyed.

    • amigan@lemmy.dynatron.me
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Except wind and solar don’t have anywhere near the density we need. Nuclear plants are about 1kW/m^2. Wind is 2-3W/m^2, solar is 100W/m^2. Siting wind and solar projects can be just as damaging.

      • iterable@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I didn’t even mention tidal or geothermal. But how are any of those just as damaging? Nuclear waste is still a issue and again if it were attacked or destroyed would cause a massive ecological issue. Again last I checked destroying a wind, solar, tidal, or geothermal generator would not release radiation. Also the time to build one of those compared to a nuclear plant is a lot less last I checked.

        • DarthBueller@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Tidal is not a proven technology. The ocean environment is incredibly harsh on equipment. High-temp geothermal power generation is extremely site-specific, though ground-loop technology for heating and cooling is a proven technology that is woefully underutilized (though there are big challenges there as well, since ground loops take up space and done incorrectly overheat the ground temp/water table, etc.).

          • iterable@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            How would you define tidal as proven? Also correct there is no one solution for all areas. Unless you built a massive solar panel array around the planet I guess.

        • amigan@lemmy.dynatron.me
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Producing wafers for solar panels is indeed one of the most ecologically damaging activities we can engage in. Have you ever been to a semiconductor fab?

          • iterable@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Solar does not mean just solar panels. There are methods of using solar without them. Also what about wind, geothermal, or tidal?

            • amigan@lemmy.dynatron.me
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              What else does it mean, CSP? I’d love to see more CSP projects, but it’s not where most of the investment is. Wind, as I’ve pointed out, is even less space-efficient than solar. And geothermal also isn’t seeing the same investment dollars. It should. Tidal power is interesting, but good luck with the fishing lobby. My state has the first commerical offshore wind farm in the US, and it continues to receive significant backlash from the fishing industry. This isn’t nearly as invasive as tidal might be.

              And this is to ignore the elephant in the room, that without nuclear, we will not get away from fossil fuels soon enough. We don’t have the technology to solve the base load problem with renewables yet. Making plans based on some assumed cadence of progress is a recipe for disaster. Storage is a hard problem, and batteries are such a dirty, shitty technology.

      • rbhfd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s a lot easier and cheaper to build a solar plant of ten times the seize compared to one nuclear plant though.

        How did you get those numbers though? A standard on-shore wind turbine has a maximum power output of 2MW. Let’s say on average, it’s half, so 1 million Watt. You’re counting 500k m² per turbine?

        What kind of area did you use for the nuclear plant?

        Also, solar has the added benefit that it can be installed on basically wasted space (e.g., people’s roof) unlike the others.